Should player success be visualized as a resume with skills and accomplishments deemed wealth?

Skills and accomplishments deeming wealth may be appealing but there are several ways to be considered successful, as being successful is both relative and subjective. Player success should not be visualized as a resume because that would produce a hierarchy by automatically ranking players based on their resume, when in reality one with a "lesser" skills and accomplishments cannot necessarily be defined as less successful.

Yes, if a person should be sized up in anyway, it should b by what the person has accomplished in their lifetime. Since there is no inheritance, a person is only deemed by what they have done, not the actions of others (such as their parents or guardians.) A person needs to work for their worth in a society. We can help those who are in trouble (the global agency deal that takes inheritance), but we ultimately have to gauge people by something. Let it be something of actual worth, their lifetime's accomplishments.

Should player success be visualized as a resume with skills and accomplishments deemed wealth?

I think we should definitively have a person's wealth dependent on a their skills and accomplishments. It is essential, to the way a human's mind works, to have a system of rewards for acts that benefit a society. People need that positive reinforcement to keep spending effort doing whatever it is they're doing. However, this is where I feel distinction should be made from modern society. It shouldn't have such a large gap between the "worth" of different skills and accomplishments. A surgeon's skill shouldn't be orders of magnitude greater then a builder's, since without a house, the surgeon wouldn't be able to perform surgery. Since some would view a surgeon's skill as requiring more effort, there still has to be a distinction in their worth, but perhaps it shouldn't be as straightforward as it is in modern society. Instead, have the worth be based on how many people benefit from that skills, and by how much. This is very much objective, but I'm sure there must exist a system that would be able to work with this.
It also stops people from riding the coattales of someone else. The worth should only be based on your own skills and accomplishments.

I agree that a players successes should be measured by an accumulation of skills and accomplishments, but not those that are strictly measured by their acquisition of wealth. Such a resume, which would require the player to gradually accumulate experience and skills through collective interactions with others, would sustain their interest and even attract new players. The resume would represent a sort of virtual investment for their efforts.

However, although I do agree that wealth may implicate a player's successful achievements, I also agree with "sherilless" that the game should measure the player's success through their willingness to be charitable with the wealth that they accumulate. In other words, players should be awarded points for selflessly donating their wealth to the underprivileged virtual citizens in the game. After all, the decrees generally aim for a level of social equality between individual participants within the game's virtual society. As we all should know, socio-economic equity can be one of the greatest contributors to producing social equality. And to achieve socio-economic equity, there has to be at least some sort of distinguishable balance amongst the monetary capital that individual player's hold. While one may assume that this balance would significantly diminish the traditionally competitive nature of video games by eventually pitting every player on the same planes of monetary success, it can open up another door that accommodates for this old-fashioned virtual competition. For example, the players may be ranked by a resume that measures their success not only through accumulation of skills, experience and wealth, but by their willingness to become moral, social Samaritans driven by admirable causes(i.e. by donating monetary capital to those in need and bolstering their well-being). In other words, players will be rewarded for their drive to achieve the aims of the aforementioned decrees.

I agree that championing a resume with skills and accomplishments should be crucial in determining their successes in the game. Improving their skills and achieving accomplishments take time and thus we should acknowledge and recognize their time contributing to the game. If wealth, or money, is the main success of the game then it is hard to measure how successful they are since they can either cheat the system to buy more wealth or even do something that gives them an advantage in acquiring success. If we only measure their skills and accomplishments, then everyone will be on the same playing level and everyone should have a fair start. Thus, if they make it to the top then they will value their success more because it is achieved through skills and time.

I agree with the fact that success should measure their wealth. Yet there should be, under the circumstance of a decree, a part in the game where the wealth is distributed back somehow. To keep it civil, there could be points awarded in other categories for their sportsmanship in giving back. So wealth can be represented in a kind of heroic way. Considering this is not real life, I believe people would abide by this because it is not their own money and the idea of giving back may not seem so harsh in the game. And the overarching idea is equality and although there could be unequal states between individuals, there will be a point where everyone comes together. When this happens, players can probably realize the dedicated players who strive for equality and those who crave the competition. A game would not be a game without some sort of upstage setting to compete with. Here, you'll see the candidates worthy of staying at the top because of the amount of effort they put in knowing that they will have to give it back if they are successful.

People, due to normal human variation, are going to have and be able to obtain different skill sets regardless of monetary value. I feel the real problem is the accumulation of these skills sets solely for monetary value. Wealth is a stimulation of more selfish aspirations or trying to gain power and control through a physical representation of those terms. Money, especially in terms we use today meaning currency with no backing beside the word of the government, seems to be a way for the government to create a hierarchy and a failed stimulus for work ethic. People will work and have skills to survive, and while I am not suggesting a reversion to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, our system of barter and social interaction could still be maintained without having to receive wealth as a reward. Maybe there should be a consideration to a replacement reward that does not establish a socio-economic hierarchy?

Fair enough, but what could possibly replace money that would not establish some sort of hierarchy? I am trying to think of any sort of reward for skills that wouldn't - as CeritaBickelmann perceptively writes - act as solely a "stimulus for work ethic". Perhaps the reward could be given secretly, so that players don't know that others have received a reward for skills and thus, a hierarchy based around this award wouldn't come to fruition. Otherwise I think that it is inevitable that people will be ranked/socially ordered - and their status determined - by their success with any sort of reward system.

I agree with McLovin's comment that mistakes are too often viewed as unacceptable by our society. If we put too much emphasis on having certain skills then, as McLovin mentioned, players will only attempt to acquire those skills and will fail to experiment or to take chances. How is establishing a set measure or proxy of success encouraging players to do anything but "play it safe"? Likening success to a resume reproduces the mentality that it's better not to take a chance instead of trying and failing - a way of thinking that is pervasive in society today.

While I agree with the premise that players shouldn't be scared away from making mistakes, which would risk of deterring concrete exploration of the game, the realism and purpose of the game necessitates the hoarding of skills and accomplishments.

Since this game was inspired by "warmongering" and "suffering" among the general populace of the world one can conclude that mistakes were made with the administration of the various states of the world. Thus the game should reward wise decisions on the part of states/players and punish drastic mistakes, which would be manifested as the addign or subtracting of skills, accomplishments, and wealth.

Too often in our society we place stigmas on mistakes. Championing a resume with skills and accomplishments will further taboo mistakes. Furthermore, the larger consequence would be that creating a merit system based on our resumes will deter people from taking risks and thus expanding the boundaries of the game